California’s Governor Newsom put out rules involving no deaths for two weeks with less than one case per 10,000 people for a county to open up! (As if two weeks of additional shut down won’t cause one suicide or death from other reasons…)
That sounds like a ridiculously unachievable goal to me. Lots of other people thought so, so thankfully these rules have been relaxed.
I’ll say it again. It’s not really about the virus. That’s the misdirection.
That’s why we seen now a bait-in-switch of how flatten the curve (which if you recall was all about preventing the hospitals from getting overwhelmed, which except for select places like New York hasn’t happened almost anywhere) has now become wait it out until a cure (read vaccine) is available. We need to stay closed to prevent people from catching the disease…that we now absolutely know is not much worse than a bad flu even with the inflated stats!
What is really going on? There’s a lot and today I want to try to get to the bigger picture of what may be in store.
China’s Great Leap Forward
How’s your history? The Great Leap Forward occurred in China under Mao from 1958 to 1962. The attempt was to collectivize people under communist principles and rapidly industrialize the nation. To go from predominately agrarian to technologically on par with the US and UK.
The result was somewhere between 18 and 48 million people dying, mostly of starvation. Central planning and trying to please the bosses with inflated stats did not work out well. (Looks like they has some poor models too!)
This video will give a short overview for those that aren’t familiar with it.
“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose…The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”
In my book, tens of millions dead is not a definition of successful!
But to someone concerned with shaping society to their desires it may just be the breaking of a few eggs.
Remember that this is the guy that said in his Memoirs (2003), “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
David Rockefeller died just a few years ago. But there are plenty of people that think like him still operating both in the light and the shadows.
Would such powerful people today care about millions dying in order to “build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will” under the guise of protecting people from the coronavirus?
Would they care that the economy is shredded, small businesses are decimated, while big businesses get bailed out or thrive?
No, I don’t think they would care.
So, why do I bring up this half-century old story? Because it’s a good analogy for what we appear to be going through.
The American Great Leap Forward
Remember when I said in one of my first articles in this series how certain people in our government were jealous of China Communist Party’s totalitarian control? Recently, I came across more proof to back up that claim.
This document details how the technological landscape of China compares to that of the USA, and in many ways that they are further ahead.
What is most interesting is that a whole bunch of the obstacles to similar adoption within the USA have now been removed with the pandemic! These include “legacy systems” that include non-digital cash, private cars, non-digital medical treatment and brick and mortar stores, while increasing surveillance.
“Last year, a U.S. government body dedicated to examining how artificial intelligence can “address the national security and defense needs of the United States” discussed in detail the “structural” changes that the American economy and society must undergo in order to ensure a technological advantage over China, according to a recent document acquired through an FOIA request. This document suggests that the U.S. follow China’s lead and even surpass them in many aspects related to AI-driven technologies, particularly their use of mass surveillance. This perspective clearly clashes with the public rhetoric of prominent U.S. government officials and politicians on China, who have labeled the Chinese government’s technology investments and export of its surveillance systems and other technologies as a major “threat” to Americans’ “way of life.””
“In addition, many of the steps for the implementation of such a program in the U.S., as laid out in this newly available document, are currently being promoted and implemented as part of the government’s response to the current coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. This likely due to the fact that many members of this same body have considerable overlap with the taskforces and advisors currently guiding the government’s plans to “re-open the economy” and efforts to use technology to respond to the current crisis.”
Society is being re-structured, whether we like it or not.
Read through this article. Look at the document. In a way, it’s a crystal ball for the future because this is what extremely powerful people desire the future to look like.
Webb concludes, “It is indeed striking how the coronavirus crisis has seemingly fulfilled the NSCAI’s entire wishlist and removed many of the obstacles to the mass adoption of AI technologies in the United States. Like major crises of the past, the national security state appears to be using the chaos and fear to promote and implement initiatives that would be normally rejected by Americans and, if history is any indicator, these new changes will remain long after the coronavirus crisis fades from the news cycle. It is essential that these so-called “solutions” be recognized for what they are and that we consider what type of world they will end up creating – an authoritarian technocracy. We ignore the rapid advance of these NSCAI-promoted initiatives and the phasing out of so-called “legacy systems” (and with them, many long-cherished freedoms) at our own peril.”
Total Population Control
This plan isn’t new. It’s just close to being in total effect!
For instance here is former NSA technical director turned whistle blower William Binney talking about it.
I can’t say for sure if some of these people are behind the virus or not (regarding engineering and/or intentionally releasing it). There’s still not a clear answer there. And I don’t think they control everything so things might not pan out this way.
BUT there does appear to be a great many people involved and tons of money to make it so. That means it is definitely worth paying attention to.
“This is the financial infrastructure that will undergird human capital markets as the automation of the Fourth Industrial Revolution dispossesses people of their economic independence. The data that will be used to run these markets will come from education, healthcare, and supportive housing settings…Many people who have started to put the pieces together are imagining a future where compulsory vaccinations are linked to digital identity with social-credit scoring or geo-fencing being implemented to restrict a person’s mobility. China is tracking people on parole on Blockchain in “smart” environments now. Such a system could be easily be modified to track individuals based on health or vaccination status. Digital martial law would be the “stick” to the “carrot” of [Internet of Things] social prescribing.”
TLDR version of that article is that, like Bill Gates, Bloomberg is a billionaire technocrat heavily invested in technology aimed at surveilling and controlling human populations…at the very least.
Where’s This Going?
It started in China. We saw lockdowns in China. We in the US, and probably most of the other world, didn’t possibly think that would happen to us. As things begin to open up many think we’re getting back to normal.
The trailer for the documentary Plandemic has been going viral the past few days…in addition to getting censored. All across social media you can watch people share this…and others attacking it viciously.
There are two major narratives going on right now. And both are actually quite rationally consistent depending on which set of spin of the facts you believe. So who do you believe?
Is the video being removed because its dangerous misinformation that will hurt people…or is it an example of censorship because it contains truth they don’t want you to know?
I’ll get to the specifics of the video soon enough, but first a little history lesson…
Who Would Know if Medical Science is Corrupted or Not?
I would say the editors of journals in which such science is published is the best place to look.
Now if there were just one or two of these saying a problem existed, maybe you could dismiss it. But here I quote four such editors across the biggest journals, BMJ, JAMA, NEJM and the Lancet. I could have dug up more, but I feel this is sufficient.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor.” – Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of New England Journal of Medicine, 2009
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness” – Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet
“We landed in our present mess because of the innumerable mistakes in the past…They include failure of clinical scientists, their institutions and the editors of the journals publishing their science to understand how thoroughly they were being caught up by the marketers who paid them. I believe it will take a revolution to sweep away decades of self-dealing by industry.” – Drummond Rennie, Deputy Editor, JAMA
“Critics of the drug industry have been increasing in number, respectability, and vehemence, and Peter [C. Gøtzsche, author of Deadly Medicine and Organised Crime] has surpassed them all in comparing the industry with organised crime. I hope that nobody will be put off reading this book by the boldness of his comparison, and perhaps the bluntness of the message will lead to valuable reform.” – Richard Smith, MD and former Editor-in-Chief, BMJ
The only people that don’t agree with these people are those that have such conflicts of interest and want to keep them that way!
If you do not believe that science can be bought…you are lying to yourself! It is abundantly clear this is possible and from what I’ve seen medicine is the place where it is worse.
Some people want to say that there are just a few bad apples in the barrel (despite the fact that every pharmaceutical company of note is guilty of the same kinds of crimes committed over and over again).
The barrel itself is not rotten. In other words the scientific method works.
BUT what if the people that direct where the barrel gets moved to are rotten?
How is Medical Science Corrupted?
Another history lesson here. We only need to cast out minds back to Big Tobacco. Everyone knows about this at least vaguely. Unfortunately, they know too few details which then don’t allow them to draw parallels to these same actions and worse being done ever since up to today.
“The tobacco industry’s program to engineer the science relating to the harms caused by cigarettes marked a watershed in the history of the industry. It moved aggressively into a new domain, the production of scientific knowledge, not for purposes of research and development but, rather, to undo what was now known: that cigarette smoking caused lethal disease. If science had historically been dedicated to the making of new facts, the industry campaign now sought to develop specific strategies to “unmake” a scientific fact.”
“If public relations could engineer consent among consumers, so too could it manage the science…Although medicine and science had never been sacrosanct from a range of social and commercial interests, the tobacco industry campaign crossed into new terrain to build a powerful network of interests and influence.”
“[Public relations man] Hill understood that simply denying emerging scientific facts would be a losing game. This would not only smack of self-interest but also ally the companies with ignorance in an age of technological and scientific hegemony. So he proposed seizing and controlling science rather than avoiding it.”
“Hill’s proposal offered the potential of a research program that would be controlled by the industry yet promoted as independent. This was a public relations masterstroke…offering funds directly to university-based scientists would enlist their support and dependence. Moreover, it would have the added benefit of making academic institutions “partners” with the tobacco industry in its moment of crisis.”
“The Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC), a group that would be carefully shaped by [PR Firm] Hill & Knowlton to serve the industry’s collective interests, would be central to the explicit goal of controlling the scientific discourse about smoking and health.”
There is far more to this story too. As I wrote about just recently, the WHO did an internal analysis that looked at how Big Tobacco was able to manipulate them. This resulted in a 260 page document that shows the width and depth of tactics used to influence science, policy making, media and more.
“In one of their most significant strategies for influencing WHO’s tobacco control activities, tobacco companies developed and maintained relationships with current or former WHO staff, consultants and advisors. In some cases, tobacco companies hired or offered future employment to former WHO or UN officials in order to indirectly gain valuable contacts within these organizations that might assist in its goal of influencing WHO activities. Of greatest concern, tobacco companies have, in some cases, had their own consultants in positions at WHO, paying them to serve the goals of tobacco companies while working for WHO. Some of these cases raise serious questions about whether the integrity of WHO decision making has been compromised.” (emphasis added)
Understand that these consultants and advisors would help make policy based on “science,” would direct funds to “science,” and would put other public messaging regarding such “science.”
If it happened in tobacco, it happens elsewhere.
Tobacco Science 2.0
Based on that analysis, the WHO made recommendations for changes so such influence couldn’t be done again. How many of those actually went into place?
And even if many changes were made, do you think sneakier methods wouldn’t be developed by industry to achieve the same aims? After all mega-profits are at stake.
Think Tobacco Science 2.0 and you might begin to see what is possible in today’s modern age. In other words the “Tobacco Playbook” is constantly being updated.
For example, as revealed through court cases, we saw GMO and chemical company Monsanto ran an “intelligence fusion center,” a term used by law enforcement for operations for surveillance and to combat terrorism.
Were they fighting terrorists? Nope. The Guardian reports how Monsanto targeted journalists and non-profits that had messages criticizing Monsanto. They used methods such as SEO (search engine optimization), negative book reviews, pressuring journalists and editors, monitoring and actions on social media, engaging “pro-science” third parties, paying academics for positive reports, etc.
Do you think they’re the only ones using these methods?
Big Tobacco eventually succumbed to the real science as opposed to their tobacco science. But they were hugely successfully (meaning profitable) in delaying what happened. As other industries saw this occur they surely thought: How could we make sure that doesn’t happen to us?
What if you influenced not just some scientists…but the head scientists? From the top down you exert a tremendous amount of control in the direction of where science goes, what gets published, what does not, or even what gets retracted.
My Wrestling with Varmus the Varmint
I read Marcia Angell’s book, The Truth About the Drug Companies back in December. She’s one of the editors quoted above that went on to write a scathing book about the industry as several of them did.
One thing stood out more than anything there, and that was the activities of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) director, Harold Varmus. It was at this point that I decided I’d be naming specific people in my Medical Monopoly Musings, starting in #28 The NIH is Compromised.
Harold Varmus
I wrestled with this decision because talking about powerful people could paint me as a target. Was I really so sure of their actions to do such a thing? I certainly didn’t want to get wrapped up in a libel suit! Still I decided I would pursue the truth, so I moved forward in naming names, starting with this man. Here’s my investigation:
***
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the main agency of the United States government responsible for public health and medical research. Our taxpayer dollars make up the majority of funding for research done at NIH.
In addition to its own research, grants from the NIH then go out to medical institutions and schools supposedly based on scientific merit.
As a publicly funded institution the science is supposed to be in the public interest. Sometimes it is. Other times…well, you be the judge. Marcia Angell, introduced in my previous post, wrote this:
“A 2003 piece of investigative reporting by David Willman in the Los Angeles Times called that picture into serious question. Willman found that senior NIH scientists (who are among the highest paid employees in the government) routinely supplement their income by accepting large consulting fees and stock options from drug companies that have dealings with the institutes. At one time, most of these kinds of connections would have been prohibited, but in 1995, the then director of the institutes, Harold Varmus, with a stroke of the pen, lifted the restrictions. After that, the NIH placed no limits on the amount of money its scientists could earn from outside work or the time they could devote to it…Some NIH scientists made hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees. The deputy director of the Laboratory of Immunology, for instance, whose salary was $179,000 in 2003, was reported to have collected more than $1.4 million in consulting fees over eleven years and received stock options valued at $865,000.”
In the next post I’ll dive deeper into Harold Varmus, the man responsible for this and a prime example of the revolving door in action, specifically within the scientific realm.
To boil it down, a guy with massive conflicts of interests makes it so that conflicts of interest are no longer restricted.
Does anyone else see a problem here?
Willman wrote, “Dual roles — federal research leader and drug company consultant — are increasingly common at the NIH, an agency once known for independent scientific inquiry on behalf of a single client: the public.”
Furthermore, “Increasingly, outside payments to NIH scientists are being hidden from public view. Relying in part on a 1998 legal opinion, NIH officials now allow more than 94% of the agency’s top-paid employees to keep their consulting income confidential. As a result, the NIH is one of the most secretive agencies in the federal government when it comes to financial disclosures…Many of them also routinely sign confidentiality agreements with their corporate employers, putting their outside work under tight wraps.”
Not only do they have conflicts of interest, but they keep them hidden. Nothing to see here folks! Keep on believing that science is objective.
You know what? Yes, I am anti-science…when that science is conducted in this way.
Willman wrote, “In November 1995, then-NIH Director Harold E. Varmus wrote to all institute and center directors, rescinding “immediately” a policy that had barred them from accepting consulting fees and payments of stock from companies….Varmus’ memo — which until now has not been made public — scuttled other restraints affecting all employees, including a $25,000 annual limit on outside income, a prohibition on accepting company stock as payment and a limit of 500 hours a year on outside activities.”
Eight years between the memo and the exposure of it. The industry made some significant strides during that time according to these rules.
As you might imagine, Willman’s exposé caused a stir. A follow-up piece came out March 13th, 2004. “Appearing before the NIH’s blue-ribbon panel on conflict of interest, Varmus also said the agency should discourage its scientists from accepting large amounts of money from companies or spending too much time on nongovernment work.” Yet the panel didn’t press Varmus very hard on why he changed the rules.
Did he really change his mind, or was he simply covering up his mis-deeds? Let’s dig a bit deeper into Varmus to get a better picture…
1989 – Varmus shared a Nobel Prize for genetic cancer research.
1993 to 1999 – Director of the National Institutes of Health
2000 to 2010 – President and CEO of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
2008 to 2010 – Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
2010 to 2015 – Director of the National Cancer Institute
2015 to Current – Professor of Medicine at Lewis Thomas University and Senior Associate at New York Genome Center
Current – Member of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board, Global Health Advisory Board at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several other boards.
Just looking at that the average person may see a distinguished and successful scientist…but if you understand that game, instead you might be worried.
Of course, in addition, Varmus has been an advisor to pharmaceutical companies Merck, Chiron Corporation, Gilead, and Onyx Pharmaceuticals.
The Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC) had a big problem with Varmus being appointed to director of the National Cancer Institute. This was because of his clear conflicts of interest, as well as his statement “You can’t do experiments to see what causes cancer – it’s not an accessible problem, and not the sort of thing scientists can afford to do.”
You can’t do experiments to see what causes cancer? Is this a statement that our top scientist in charge of cancer should be making?
That’s a great opinion…if you want to keep the status quo of many, many people getting cancer! Notice how environmental pollutants have nothing to do with it.
Samuel Epstein, Chairman of CPC, wrote, “The ignorance of Varmus to cancer prevention is reinforced by his unrecognized personal conflicts of interest…Varmus also gave senior NCI staff free license to consult with the cancer drug industry, a flagrant institutional conflict of interest. In this connection, the 2008 edition of Charity Rating Guide & Watchdog Report listed Varmus with a compensation package of about $2.7 million. According to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, this is the highest compensation of directors in over 500 major non-profit organizations ever monitored.”
Cancer drugs are a big industry…an industry that wants to keep it that way. God forbid we help people without lining the pockets of Big Pharma even more. Varmus the Varmint has done very well for himself and those he works for…which is not the public.
THIS is how the scientific research game is played in the real world.
*****
Look, until I came across this story in Angell’s book I had never heard of this man. I’m willing to bet, unless you read my posts earlier, you haven’t until now either.
But based on that I started really digging into him, finding that almost no one had really covered him. This is really where I started to put pieces together in the bigger picture of how science can be rigged.
I bring him up because the ONLY other person I’ve seen talk about him is…Dr. Judy Mikovits, the woman featured in the Plandemic video.
I’ll tell you what. This current pandemic has led to my getting educated around HIV and AIDS a lot! (For example, similar controversies regarding testing.) But I’m no virologist. I do not have the expertise to judge the truth of Mikovits claims, nor her detractors, on retroviruses.
The main message is contained within this simplified cartoon. Using mouse cells to produce vaccines (or human cells) can cause the introduction of retroviruses into us.
Again, that is beyond my pay grade. But plenty of other stuff she talks about does fit into what I have researched.
She asks a really good, yet simple question about vaccines. “If vaccines are as safe as sugar water, why do the pharmaceutical companies need to have complete financial immunity and be protected by a battalion of lawyers from the US Department of Justice?”
John Clements, worked for the WHO in the Expanded Program on Immunization. Near the conclusion of the meeting he states:
”I am really concerned that we have taken off like a boat going down one arm of the mangrove swamp at high speed, when in fact there was no enough discussion really early on about which way the boat should go at all. And I really want to risk offending everyone in the room by saying that perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted and we have all reached this point now where we are leg hanging, even though I hear the majority of the consultants say to the Board that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes. I know how we handle it from here is extremely problematic…And what we have here is people who have, for every best reason in the world, pursued a direction of research. But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work has been done and through freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say. My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with Thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe. So I leave you with the challenge that I am very concerned that this has gotten this far, and that having got this far, how you present in a concerted voice the information to the ACIP in a way they will be able to handle it and not get exposed to the traps which are out there in public relations. My message would be that any other study, and I like the study that has just been described here very much. I think it makes a lot of sense, but it has to be thought through. What are the potential outcomes and how will you handle it? How will it be presented to a public and a media that is hungry for selecting the information they want to use for whatever means they have in store for them?” (emphasis added)
Mikovits replies to this with, “Are you reading this summation the same way I am? That maybe this is a study that shouldn’t have been done? In my entire life I’ve never known a scientist to argue against obtaining knowledge. And it isn’t the harm to children he’s worried about, but how this information can be managed. Honestly, it seems they’ve done a pretty good job of managing information in the nearly two decades since that meeting was held.”
By the way, she states she is not against vaccines…just bad science or lack of it around vaccines.
The best of tobacco science 2.0 is to only conduct science where the outcome is already known. And if science comes out contrary to what industry wants it has to be handled appropriately. That is what Mikovits is saying happened to her.
It sounds unbelievable at first, but that’s only if you do not understand the game being played and the stakes involved.
“Science” is directed to predetermined outcomes by those that have the power to direct it. You could think of it as one of the ultimate forms of marketing, to achieve scientific consensus.
What Mikovits has to say about Varmus
“There are three people I place in what Frank Ruscetti [her research partner] calls the “Unholy Trinity of Science,” and they are Harold Varmus, Francis Collins, and Tony Fauci. Whenever you ask yourself why the truth hasn’t been told in a critical area of public health, you’ll probably find the fingerprints of these men at the crime scene.”
Everyone knows who Fauci is now.
Francis Collins is someone else who has been director of NIH, well known for his involvement in the Human Genome Project. I do not know much about him beyond this so that’s a topic for another time.
As mentioned, after all my research into Varmus, this was the only other person I’d heard talking about him. It’s a brief mention midway through the book. But then bigger details come later which line up with my own research into this man.
***
“Let’s talk about downward mobility and see if this makes any sense.
Depending on experience (and probably your political backing), the director of the National Institutes of Health will make somewhere up to $230,000 a year.
“In 2016, it was reported that the president and CEO of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Dr. Craig Thompson, made $2,944,000, or about ten times what one would make as director of the National Institutes of Health. [We saw above Varmus actually made about $2.7 million]
“Now, the latest information on a salary for the director of the National Cancer Institute (a division of the National Institutes of Health) is up to a little more than a $151,000.
“Okay, so let’s get this chain of events straight.
“You’re Harold Varmus and you’ve got both a Nobel Prize and a Lasker Award.
“You serve as director of the National Institutes of Health for eight years.
“After serving as director of the National Institutes of Health, you pick up a sweet gig at a New York Cancer clinic where you make a couple million dollars per year.
“Then suddenly you decided you want to head up a division of the National Institutes of Health (National Cancer Institute), where at most you’ll make a little over a hundred and fifty thousand a year, about five percent of what you’d made the previous year.
“I just don’t buy it.
“Harold Varmus was brought in to get Frank Ruscetti under control.
“When Harold Varmus took over at the National Cancer Institute, he directed a team led by John Coffin to discredit Frank Ruscetti.”
***
I had looked at the timeline of where Varmus worked before, seeing the scientific revolving door in action. But here one of those moves specifically was addressed in why.
Why did Varmus rotate from a top private industry position back into a lower government position then he’d previously had?
A director of scientists can work to control the scientific narrative. Tobacco science 2.0 at its best.
Motive and Follow the Money
If you’re looking into crimes, there are two things you want to look at. Motive is why a person or group of people would engage in such things. In many cases this happens to be money, in which case you want to see where the money comes from and goes.
The narrative against Mikovits is that she did flawed science but wanted to win awards for it.
Lots of science is wrong. Plenty of papers get retracted. But do those scientists tends to get fired and arrested for it?
Something that lends credence to her story is how she was arrested but never charged for anything. If they had all the proof, why not? “And in the years since my false arrest and imprisonment, why have I been unable to have a single day in court for a judge and jury to hear my claims, even though I have never given up the effort to receive process?”
They claim she’s trying to make money from her book (personally, as a seller of books I know that unless you’re at the very top, like Stephen King, this is NOT a good way to make lots of money).
Meanwhile the money involved in the medical complex is VAST. Financial conflicts of interest are rampant, so wouldn’t we expect at least some top scientists to be included in that, especially when, like we see with Varmus, he wrote the rules to make it so at the NIH?!?
Ultimately, it is up to you to make your own decision. But I figured it was worth writing this article to give my view.
(Just because I believe Mikovits’ main story doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with her on every point and opinion.)
Varmus’ Connection to…who else…the Gates Foundation
Obviously, life is much messier than that but we’re just looking for a simpler model of the world right now.
(I know some people think we live in a meaningless universe where good and evil don’t exist. But I don’t find that useful as it doesn’t help us navigate this world. Besides even people that state such beliefs in meaninglessness don’t actually live by them.)
Regardless of metaphysical beliefs or lack of them, I think we can all agree that people can engage in things that are either good or bad. Of course, this is a judgement call. And with that there are lots of shades of grey, time scales, differing values and all kinds of things to think about. But once again we’re keeping it simple. Thus:
Hurting babies = evil
Protecting babies = good
Do you agree with that? Good! We’ll start just there.
With this spectrum we can then think about a particular person. Let’s take Bill Gates.
I don’t want to talk about Bill Gates. But I have to talk about Bill Gates. With what is going on in the world he is one of the most important people alive. Thus, it seems worth investigating his motives and actions.
Four Possible Bill Gates
On this spectrum Gates could exist in different spots according to different theories about who he actually is at heart. Good and evil is too simple, but we can extend that a bit further using four buckets for simplification purposes.
Saintly Philanthropist – On the far right we see someone that is a huge benefactor for the world, protecting millions of babies, potentially the whole planet. He is doing his best to help humanity thrive and accomplishing great things.
Normal Person with Virtues & Flaws – On the middle right we’d see obvious care for babies as any normal human would. Striving to protect them through the use of resources, time, and effort would then fit here too. But as all humans are flawed, there is potential for just being wrong about ways of accomplishing that here. In other words, you could be trying to help someone and end up hurting them.
Ruthless Power Hungry Sociopath – On the middle left we’d see not caring about hurting babies. It could simply be a by-product or collateral damage, from actions aimed at things such as gaining money, power and control of the world. Maybe you wouldn’t directly harm a baby…but if other people do so, or if it’s distant, that is okay. Means to an end.
Satanist/Pedophile/Eugenicist – Far on the left side we’d see hurting and killing babies, even getting sadistic pleasure out of it. Enjoyment from being evil. (Note, that I lumped these three things together for simplicity’s sake when they could certainly be separate. There’s also different types of Satanists, some who do seem to be truly evil, while others enjoy the religion mockingly when they’re really atheist. To the latter I apologize for lumping you in with the others. Again, doing this all for simplification purposes.)
Where do I think that Bill Gates lies? I’m not sure except to say that, in my opinion, it is not the far right. He’s not a saint. I’ve seen enough evidence to say that at the very least he’s on the middle right, and some evidence to suggest it’s worse than that.
But I also cannot justifiably jump both feet into any of these buckets as I’ve seen others do. I don’t know enough…yet. Buckle up this is the first in a series about Bill Gates so we can explore this issue in depth! If you thought my WHO reporting was great, that was just the appetizer.
Why He’s Not a Saint in My Book
Gates has publicly said he wants to vaccinate every single person. His recent GatesNotes said, “The goal is to pick the one or two best vaccine constructs and vaccinate the entire world.”
I do not want that. Once again, I am totally fine with people getting the vaccine if they choose. I hope this new vaccine does work and is extremely low in side effects. But I’m very worried it won’t be.
I say, to each their own. But that’s how I want it to be. I want the CHOICE to engage in this rushed, likely a brand new never-before-used RNA vaccine which “essentially turns your body into its own vaccine manufacturing unit.”
Therefore…that makes him my enemy, at least a little bit not good in my book. That knocks him out of the saint category in my mind.
Still, it is possible he believes in vaccines so completely that he wants to do this for the good of everyone. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt at this point that he is just blinded in the matter. Many people definitely are!
Scott Adams A Priori Dismissal of Gates as Evil
Michael, whose been following my series here, sent me this video.
He gets into the relevant stuff at 27:30
Let me start off by saying that I’m a fan of Scott Adams. I always liked Dilbert. I’ve read one of Adam’s books, listened to interviews with him, etc. I think he has some smart and great ideas. But this is not one of them…
His is an interesting line of reasoning. It basically goes like this. Because Santa Claus, Jonah in the whale, professional wrestling, and Big Foot are all fake, therefore Bill Gates can’t be evil.
At least he honestly lays it out, whereas many people think the same way but with it just being amorphous thoughts they’ve never articulated. I commend him for even addressing the issue.
But it is intellectually dishonest. Adams is telling you that he made up his mind before looking at any data!
Then when he looks at the data oh-so-briefly, he finds a few things that support his ideas, which then lets him think case closed. If you make up your mind first, all you’re going to do is confirm your bias. You’ll find the things that support you and dismiss anything that doesn’t.
Let me put it this way.
Cast your mind back twenty years ago. Someone tells you that Bill Cosby is a serial rapist. By Adam’s line of reasoning, doesn’t it make sense to dismiss this outright? Don’t forget that Bill not only had popular shows and commercials but supported charities and the community. (Can’t think about that without remembering Dave Chapelle’s amazing callback joke, “he rapes but he saves.”)
No one would possibly believe that the kid show host and philanthropist Jimmy Savile was Britain’s most prolific pedophile! Any accusations could be summarily dismissed because BIGFOOT! In fact, allegations were brought up many times…and they all were dismissed until after his death.
There’s no way the Catholic priest could be touching kids. He’s a man of god!
So I think Adams a priori argument is extremely hollow.
In short, DO NOT MAKE UP YOUR MIND FIRST.
He then gives a few things to back up his opinion. This part is laughable though because of Adams demonstration of lack of knowledge…but also of being guilty of the same things he states are the problem!
But then Adam goes on to do mind reading that Gates doesn’t believe that.
We see from Gates Notes again, “Short of a miracle treatment, which we can’t count on, the only way to return the world to where it was before COVID-19 showed up is a highly effective vaccine that prevents the disease.” (emphasis added)
That looks to me to be saying that a vaccine is necessary for health. Am I reading that wrong?
In his popular Ted Talk, Gates said, “my full-time work at the foundation is mostly about vaccines and seeds” which gives us a clue.
We can look at where the Gates Foundation spends its money (2018 Annual Report). What is most important for health? Adams makes a big deal about sanitation because of the toilets covered in the Netflix special (see below). How much is spent here as compared to nutrition or vaccines? If we use money spent as a proxy for importance to health, we can see what Gates thinks!
Notice the $1 billion here for polio vaccine and delivery compared to just $112M for nutrition. (* The figure in top right represents thousands of dollars, while my figures reflect that.) Prevent one disease with a vaccine, or pretty much any disease through better nutrition?Compare how much went into new toilets and everything water, sanitation and hygiene as opposed to the rest.Many of these are also at least partially going to vaccines
Guilt by Association
Adams brings up the case of Bill Gates relations to Jeffrey Epstein, who as you famously know #didnotkillhimself.
He does make some valid points. I do see far too much of this in the “conspiracy” world. Famous people meet lots of famous people. There are connections between these people and the many organizations they run. So just because two people take a picture together doesn’t mean they’re in cahoots.
As an example, Adams mentions how he had a serial pedophile in his home, but he didn’t know it at the time!
The only problem with that argument is that Gates STARTED his relationship with Epstein AFTER his arrest for soliciting underage girls. Other people at the Foundation thought this was a bad idea, especially given the focus of the Foundation on women empowerment!
Associations are certainly not definitive proof. But neither should they be dismissed outright. They should be looked into. In RICO cases connections are in fact a large part of how criminal organizations are brought down.
More on the Gates and Epstein connections in a later article. I’ve looked at it a little bit thus far and I honestly don’t know if there’s anything here. But there might be.
Misquotes or Out of Context
Quotes are another thing that can easily be misleading. One big thing is to just outright misquote someone. Another is to edit the quote without context to make it look bad. The latter bit happens a lot!
Back to the Ted Talk, Bill says, “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10% or 15%. But there, we see an increase of about 1.3.”
Many see this as PROOF that Gates wants to kill people with vaccines. But it is not. He’s not talking about people so much as population growth. And it is well-established that as people become healthier and better off economically birth rates go down.
He says that something in the equation must go to zero in order for CO2 to go to zero. One of his factors is population.
Is this him being very open about his eugenicist plans? You be the judge, but personally I find this to be extremely weak evidence.
One Sided Arguments
Adams mentions being sent a video online that talks about Gates evil plans. And he rightly says that viewing something one-sided is easy to convince you of such. I agree with that too. We shouldn’t view one thing and automatically believe it. We should seek out both sides.
Yet, then he goes on to point out a Netflix special, Inside Bill’s Brain: Decoding Bill Gates which came out in September 2019.
Since Adam has previously made up his mind that Gates must be good this series is automatically assumed to be true and accurate while the Youtube video was inaccurate. (As if a one-sided documentary or propaganda isn’t possible on Netflix.)
I watched all three episodes so to clearly see this side of the argument. It is 98% positive towards Bill. It paints him as a very smart individual (and I am not doubting that at all). It paints him as a man aiming to do great things in the world. It even paints him as a victim at times because of things such as the USA/China trade war.
That 2% other side is just enough to make many people think it’s a balanced look at Gates. The monopoly anti-trust case against Microsoft is briefly mentioned with Gates lessons learned from his younger naïve self.
Above all, there was one thing that really stood out to me in these videos.
Bill Gates is a Technocrat Do you believe in Technocracy?
In the final episode, one criticism that is brought up is that Gates is “a technophile that thinks that technology will save everything.”
Bill responds like this, “Yeah, I’m basically guilty of that. Any problem I will look at how technical innovation can help solve that problem. It’s the one thing I know and the one thing I’m good at. And so, you know, that’s my hammer. Uh…And so lots of problems look like nails because I’ve got a hammer.”
Technocracy is defined as an ideological system of governance in which decision-makers are selected on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge. Bill Gates, being at one time the richest man on the planet, has clearly appointed himself a leader in science, education and medicine. With his views on technology and the power he wields that makes him a technocrat.
“I see global innovation as the key to limiting the damage. This includes innovations in testing, treatments, vaccines, and policies to limit the spread while minimizing the damage to economies and well-being…It can also sound like we have all the scientific advances needed to re-open the economy, but in fact we do not.”
In other words, as a human that may possibly be infected with SARS-CoV2, Gates sees me as a nail and he has his hammer, a vaccine.
I feel like these quotes from Gates himself sums it up. Technology will save us all. Always new technology. Never mind, that technology has created almost all the problems we’re facing. Never mind that we often find technology has long-term complications that we don’t realize until much later on.
Gates believes we need new technology in vaccines. We need to give everyone a digital ID in order to solve these problems. We need to genetically engineer more food, including growing meat in a lab. 5G is needed to control and coordinate all these things. These are things Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation invests in.
Technology is the route to our future. The only thing that can save us. That is what Gates clearly believes.
Do you?
I personally want to stay human and not become part machine. This is why I can’t see him as a saint because we have different life philosophies.
I’m obviously not a luddite and saying that all technology is bad…but some of it definitely has issues! I think we as a human species would be better off slowing down a bit, cleaning up some of the messes we’ve created with technology using current technology, instead of always plowing forward.
In coming articles I’ll be exploring as best as I can the facts surrounding Bill Gates for what bucket he best seems to sit in. Based on what I’ve learned so far, I have my leanings but will wait until I learn much more before taking a stand.
We continued to show that the World Health Organization (WHO) is a corrupted organization. To recap, in part one we saw the following:
How “Control” of the WHO is less useful to think about than “Influence”
How corruption would build in a large organization like the WHO, even if most of the people involved were good
The censorship of a documentary (TrustWHO) that critically looked at the WHO
How Big Tobacco was able to influence and infiltrate the WHO in order to continue to rake in profits. Long after this occurred, the WHO put together a committee to analyze how it happened. The report they produced is eye-opening because it’s a playbook of tactics…one that other industries are using against the WHO today
A Wikileaks document dump showing the WHO took policy notes from Big Pharma
How the WHO helped to fuel the opioid epidemic making policy straight from what Purdue Pharma wanted including bad science and over-prescribing
A former Director General of the WHO, Halfdan Mahler stating Big Pharma “is taking over WHO” back in 1988
Other whistleblowers, like Dr. Germán Velásquez, WHO Director of the Secretariat, being attacked by Pharma and locked out of important meetings
The Swine Flu and how the WHO changed how the grading of pandemic levels were altered in order for Big Pharma to sell more drugs to countries
Several examples of rampant conflicts of interest in employees and policy makers
The WHO’s cover-up of Chernobyl and Fukishima deaths, denying radiation causes anything besides cancer
That was part one. Now, let us continue…
WHO Spends More on Travel then AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Speaking about then Director-General Margaret Chan, “Three sources who asked not to be identified for fear of losing their jobs told the AP that Chan often flew in first class.” She spent more than $370,000 that year. Always good to strike fear into your employees for telling the truth!
Travel is certainly necessary, but are these people using funds that ought to be better spent as their own slush fund?
Vaccines are Safe and Effective…but We Don’t Know How Many People They Kill
The party line is always that vaccines are safe and effective. Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at will tell you exactly that. In this video you can hear her talk about how “vaccines are very safe.”
Yet, then at the WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, in Geneva, December 2-3, 2019, she said,
“I cannot overemphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries and this adds to miscommunication and the misapprehensions. Because we are not able to give very good clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine, and this always gets brought up in the media. One should be able to give a factual account of what has happened and what the cause of deaths are. But in most cases, there is obfuscation and therefore there is less trust in the system.”
Here’s a deeper dive including commentary that covers the many different people at the WHO summit talking about various areas in which they actually don’t have good safety science.
The Goal is Universal Vaccination
The Immunization Agenda 2030 envisions “A world where everyone, everywhere, at every age, fully benefits from vaccines for good health and well-being.”
“Immunization is the foundation of the primary health care system and an indisputable human right. It’s also one of the best health investments money can buy.”
Here’s the truth. Most anti-vaxxers aren’t really anti-vaccine. They simply want the choice to be able to opt-in or out for themselves or their children. Many are ex-vaxxers because someone in their families were injured severely. They want proper education about risks and benefits (aka informed consent) so people can make a good choice about this pharmaceutical intervention. The problem is that choice is being eroded.
The WHO and related organizations are very clear that “vaccine misinformation” is their enemy.
“Uptake of vaccination depends on [limiting] the spread of misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines [to] sustain trust in vaccines…and to build resilience against misinformation. The harm being caused by anti-vaccine messaging, especially on social media, should be addressed by understanding the context and reasons for lack of trust and by building and keeping trust, especially in the face of fear and distrust in traditional establishments. Strategic investments to increase trust and confidence in vaccines, in particular through strong community engagement, would increase community support for vaccines and ensure that vaccination is viewed as a social norm.”
Contrary to what they say, it is not so much the spread of misinformation, but of real information. People are starting to pick up on this as which is why trust in vaccines is going down. And this is why censorship is increasing.
They even are going so far to say that when vaccines cause injuries they aren’t really from the vaccine! Instead it’s all in people’s heads, aka “immunization stress-related responses”. How many times have doctors used this excuse when they simply don’t know what is going on? (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, EMF hypersensitivity, etc.)
I get it. I agree that misinformation would be best not to be shared.
But you know what is labeled misinformation? Any information and studies that show that there are risks to vaccines. That means they’re not really clamping down on misinformation but instead are spreading propaganda.
Early on they state, “For consent to be valid, it must be informed, understood and voluntary, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.” Yes, I think everyone agrees with this.
But then, one of the three common approaches listed on the next page is implied consent. “An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including letters directly addressed to the parents. Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent.”
In this day and age after the #metoo movement, guys are scared to make a move on women because they don’t have implicit and verbal consent. Yet, a medical procedure can be done with less consent then going in for a kiss?
Doesn’t make much sense to me. Could a pedophile send out information about themselves to parents, such as an arrest record on a postcard, then get away with groping a child saying they parent had implied consent by not keeping them away? Don’t think so!
Charles Weijer, a bioethicist at Western University in Canada, says that implied consent is “no substitute for informed consent. Indeed, implied consent is no consent at all. We have no assurance that parents in fact received information about [vaccination studies] let alone that they understood it.” https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-02/b-wmv022520.php
While this document is focused on adolescents, similar ideas are applied elsewhere. Understand, adult coronavirus vaccination mandates are coming…
“Whether consent is needed for mandatory vaccination depends on the legal nature of the regulations. When mandatory vaccination is established in relevant provisions in law, consent may not be required.”
Most of my readers are in the US so you might want to know about ‘Jacobson v. Massachusetts.’ This Supreme Court case upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. “The Court’s decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.”
I do expect there will be new laws passed or changed to make this easier, as was done in Denmark. The vaccine people are quite clear that they want mandatory vaccines for every person. They might not be able to actually force it on you. Maybe it’s fines or imprisonment if you opt out. Maybe it’s that they make it so that you can’t participate in something if you don’t get it. We saw this with children not being allowed to go to school in several states. What appears to be the plan is that you will not be allowed to travel without vaccination. So yes, you can opt out, but then you’ll lose these privileges.
Takeshi Kasai, the WHO’s regional director for the Western Pacific, “At least until a vaccine, or a very effective treatment, is found, this process will need to become our new normal.” We’re locked down until the vaccine is here.
Understand, that is where this is going.
WHO’s Breach of Ethics with Malaria Vaccine
All that about informed consent was to help you to understand a study going on right now.
Mosquirix, also known as the RTS,S vaccine, is produced by GlaxoSmithKline. (To give some background, GSK has paid $4.4 billion in fines in the US since 2000 for false marketing and claims, safety violations, bribery and more. This includes a $3 billion lawsuit where they withheld critical safety data from the FDA.)
A large scale study, led by the WHO, of Mosquirix’s effects is being conducted in Malawi, Ghana and Kenya. This study will involve 720,000 children of which implied consent is given.
Congratulations, you have been selected to be a part of a medical experiment…and we won’t even let you know about it. Your consent is implied because we sent some pamphlets out even though they didn’t disclose all the information about a doubled-death rate in girls in the earlier trial.
This violates the Nuremberg Code…you know what was put in place to stop medical experiments such as the Nazi’s conducted.
Phase III trials of the RTS,S malaria vaccine identified three safety concerns: higher risks of meningitis, cerebral malaria, and doubled female mortality (emphasis added)
Owing to the urgency of improving malaria control, the World Health Organization intends to decide on extending the vaccine to other African countries after only 24 months using the prevention of “severe malaria” as a surrogate marker for overall mortality
Severe malaria is not a good marker for all cause mortality; it is not even a good marker for malaria mortality, as data indicate that case fatality from severe malaria might be higher in the malaria vaccine group
An early decision after 24 months might be biased in favour of the vaccine, which was more efficacious in the first year of follow-up in the phase III trials; the relative risks of both cerebral malaria and female mortality increased after the booster dose at 20 months
We recommend that the pilot studies use “overall mortality” to assess vaccine performance and that study populations are followed for the full 4-5 years of the study before a decision on rollout is made
Meanwhile, this study specifically violates the Malawi constitution which states, “No person shall be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without his or her consent.”
Right now, there’s a petition on Change.org that’s just under 6,000 signatures away from 35,000 needed to try to change this.
“In your previous meeting you advocated for less independent testing, considered ‘redundant’, in order to speed up the supply of products. The recent administration of 250,000 defective vaccines in China, the tragedy of the oral polio campaign in India with over 450,000 cases of paralysis and death, the damage caused by the Dengue vaccine in the Philippines reports from all over the world of chronic pain and paralysis after administration of the HPV vaccine show that vaccine safety and efficacy are being tragically disregarded in this drive for fast-tracking approval and easy certification.”
The COVID19 Pandemic
Let’s turn gears to look at some other controversial parts of the handling of the COVID19 pandemic.
Separating Families for Quarantining
“Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.” – Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of WHO Health Emergencies Programme
I don’t know anyone who would agree that that’s a good idea! Do you?
It’s not hard for anyone to imagine this becoming even more totalitarian. If all the state has to do is show you that you’ve “tested positive” and you disappear.
Believe the WHO…or Believe the WHO?
More than 50% of our planet is in some form of lockdown. There’s the ever popular social distancing. There are travel restrictions and curfews. Contact tracing is the new hot technological term. How well do these work?
The WHO follows the best science, right? (The best science money can buy!) So it was interesting to find this their own scientists said what we’re doing isn’t the way to go. All those mentioned above had little to no scientific evidence.
Notice what is “not recommended in any circumstances” and “extraordinary measures.”
“Home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure, and there would be considerable difficulties in implementing it.”
And yet here we are quarantining even non-exposed people!
Dr. Mike Ryan, who wants to separate families as deemed necessary, has stated, “There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.”
Yet, regarding masks, this same report states, “Recommended for symptomatic individuals, and conditionally recommended for public protection. Given the costs and the uncertain effectiveness, face masks are conditionally recommended only in severe influenza epidemics or pandemics for the protection of the general population, but are recommended for symptomatic individuals at all times.”
If they can’t even get masks right (the CDC similarly flip-flopped on the matter), do you really trust them with bigger health ideas?
WHO Urges Sweden to Revise Course
“The World Health Organization (WHO) is skeptical of Sweden’s approach. Noting a fresh surge in the country’s infections, the WHO told CNN Wednesday that it’s “imperative” that Sweden “increase measures to control spread of the virus, prepare and increase capacity of the health system to cope, ensure physical distancing and communicate the why and how of all measures to the population,” reports CNN.
Earlier on during the pandemic I was rooting for Sweden to not cave into the political and media pressure. I felt it was important that they stick to their guns so that we had a “control group” compared to all the countries who locked down. So far, so good!
Time will still tell, but it seems that this is spun in each direction depending on which set of facts you look at.
Unfortunately, even if this is the case, it will be explained away as an aberration because that is how you control the narrative.
Antibodies = No Immunity
In their April 24th update, the WHO said, “There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.”
No evidence is a strong phrase, not to mention one that flies in the face with how immunity tends to work.
Yes, there certainly are some cases of people being infected with SARS-CoV-2 more than once. But does that make for “no evidence”?
This caused another uproar. And the WHO walked back their statements the next day, tweeting:
Earlier today we tweeted about a new WHO scientific brief on "immunity passports". The thread caused some concern & we would like to clarify:
We expect that most people who are infected with #COVID19 will develop an antibody response that will provide some level of protection. pic.twitter.com/AmxvQQLTjM
This whole concept is more interesting because antibodies are how most vaccines work. This gives rise to the idea, with fast-mutating coronavirus strains, that it would need to be an annual shot like the not-very-effective influenza vaccine.
Funding and Defunding the WHO
Personally, I think Trumps calls to defund the WHO are a good move. On April 14th he said, “Today I am instructing my administration to halt funding of the WHO while a review is conducted to assess the WHO’s role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.”
The interesting thing about this is that if it comes to pass, it makes the Gates Foundation the biggest funder of the WHO, so we’ll turn there next.
But first look at just how much Big Pharma contributes. This is from the 2017 report.
Bayer $1,158,060
Bristol-Myers Squib $215,730
GlaxoSmithKline $7,365,666
Gilead Sciences $3,124,450
Hoffmann-La Roche $6,628,090
Merck $1,912,226
Novartis $500,000
Sanofi Pasteur $9,411,491
Sanofi-Aventis $2,634,963
I listed just some of the more recognizable pharmaceutical companies’ names. This does not include the many organizations these companies contribute to that then contribute to the WHO such as CDC Foundation ($3.2 million), Rockefeller Foundation ($748,945), and many others.
And overall, it’s not that much compared to the total $2.1 billion privately donated that year (compared to $1 billion from member states, that is governments).
But understand that these donations are devoted to specific projects as picked by the donors.
I start with this sharp criticism from a WHO employee of the Gates Foundation’s influence. Arati Kochi was the chief of the malaria program at the WHO. He complained to then director-general Chan that the money could have “far-reaching, largely unintended consequences.”
Many of the world’s leading malaria scientists are now “locked up in a ‘cartel’ with their own research funding being linked to those of others within the group,” Kochi wrote. Because “each has a vested interest to safeguard the work of the others,” he wrote, getting independent reviews of research proposals “is becoming increasingly difficult.”
Also, he argued, the foundation’s determination to have its favored research used to guide the health organization’s recommendations “could have implicitly dangerous consequences on the policy-making process in world health.”
Kochi, an openly undiplomatic official who won admiration for reorganizing the world fight against tuberculosis but was ousted from that job partly because he offended donors like the Rockefeller Foundation, called the Gates Foundation’s decision making “a closed internal process, and as far as can be seen, accountable to none other than itself.”
Moreover, he added, the foundation “even takes its vested interest to seeing the data it helped generate taken to policy.”
There have been hints in recent months that the World Health Organization feels threatened by the growing power of the Gates Foundation. Some scientists have said privately that the foundation was “creating its own WHO.”
Another New York Times article from 2017, wrote that “the Gates Foundation…has claimed for itself a core W.H.O. role: “’diagnosing the world’s health problems and identifying the solutions.’”
That’s interesting. Just because Bill Gates was formerly the richest person on the planet, he’s become qualified to diagnose and solve the world’s health problems? As many people point out he is not a doctor, not medically trained, not scientifically trained, instead a businessman.
As a Politico article put it, “Some billionaires are satisfied with buying themselves an island. Bill Gates got a United Nations health agency in Geneva.”
Kochi is not the only critic. Far from it. Some details from the Politico article:
“The term often used was ‘monopolistic philanthropy’, the idea that Gates was taking his approach to computers and applying it to the Gates Foundation,” said a source close to the WHO board.
However, his sway has NGOs and academics worried. Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.
But the foundation’s focus on delivering vaccines and medicines, rather than on building resilient health systems, has drawn criticism. And some NGOs worry it may be too close to industry.
There’s a reason I wrote Robber Baron Philanthropists. I believe Gates is today’s prime example of just that. The fact is you do not have to believe he’s an evil eugenicist to see that there are problems with his approach. I hope to clearly outline the various possibilities so we’ll be exploring details about him more in the future.
Trust the WHO – Mainstream Media and Big Tech All Do…
AP News reports, for years now, people at the WHO have been pressuring Big Tech to “to take more aggressive action against anti-vaccination misinformation.”
With the pandemic, censorship has been kicked up another notch. Andy Pattison is the manager of digital solutions for the WHO. “Pattison said he and his team now directly flag misleading coronavirus information and, at times, lobby for it to be removed from Facebook, Google and Google’s YouTube service.” These and others, like Twitter, have been “cracking down in unprecedented ways.”
In fact, you’ll be censored if you say anything that is not following the guidelines of the WHO. Yep, the people that have THIS track record I’ve been sharing are the definitive authority for the world and your information.
Let me get this straight. The WHO is the authority who chooses which information is “correct”. So what is are the big tech people supposed to do when the WHO contradicts themselves regarding transmission of the disease, wearing masks, or a variety of other things?
Twitter really should have deleted the WHO’s tweet that there was no evidence of antibodies giving immunity!
I haven’t seen anyone saying they have cures for coronavirus, though I’m sure they’re out there. I see a lot of people talking about how vitamin C is necessary for immune system support. It seems to me this message should be propagated rather than clamped down on.
And now I am officially a spreader of misinformation. Oh wait, I’ve been doing that all along because I’ve been talking about vaccines in other than glowing terms!
This is what happens when the medical cartel makes the rules on what we can do and say.
Closing Thoughts
Having explored all this it is abundantly clear to me that the WHO is not really about health. They’re about disease. It’s the pharmaceutical disease-care model all over and little else. This is further and further being propagated into mainstream and online media notably through censorship.
While I’m sure there are still good people around, it is clear that the conflicts of interest are rampant which breeds corruption. The WHO is influenced heavily by Big Pharma. They’re influenced by Gates who appears to be intimately involved with the medical cartel.
The WHO is influenced by China’s Communist Party, which is a whole other layer. And, to be honest, I’m not sure how that fits in with all the rest, though I figure I’ll find some more when digging deeper into Gates.
It comes down to this:
Do you believe that pharmaceuticals are the route to health?
No, then the World Health Organization is not your authority.
Health does not come from a pharmacist. It does not come at the tip of a syringe. I’m not saying those don’t have their uses either, but it seems to me if the WHO was really about health, things would be far, far different.
In this post the goal is to paint a broader picture of the controversies surrounding the WHO over the years. It ballooned in size because the more you dig the more you find, so it will be split to two parts.
The goal of this is to make a more critically informed decision on whether we really should be looking to this organization as the authority on health in the COVID19 pandemic or any other matter of health.
But first a little bit of how I feel it is best to think about the WHO, or any large organization.
Who Controls the WHO?
Is it China? Is it Bill Gates? Is it Big Pharma? (Many people are latching straight onto their favorite enemy right now.)
But control is not a useful word to be using. The world is messy. Lots of people want to dismiss any “conspiracy theories” because they often point out that control of something so complex, or too many people involved which would be complicit, that this idea is ludicrous.
And I agree with that for the most part. Systems are complicated with many interlocking parts.
That’s why the way I see it, it’s not so much about control as about influence.
If Big Pharma can get policies and decisions swayed in their favor just 10% of the time, as I’ll prove shortly they’ve done over and over again, that gives them an unfair advantage. If one high-up person is “in their pocket” and they make a decision on a policy that has lasting impact this has occurred.
This then means through time they’ll continue to benefit allowing for more similar actions to be taken. In other words, the 10% compounds over time.
It also means that the one person becomes two, becomes five. Any degree of corruption at high levels allows for more corrupt people, not less, to gain more power. After all, almost all of these positions are appointed not elected. (And we know elections can be gamed too!)
Corruption spreads. In a backroom deal someone basically says you do this thing for us you’ll get the position. With the position you help us gain more profits and power so we incentivize the next person…
At the same time corruption stops “good people” from being successful. They get locked out in one fashion or another. We’ll see examples of that from employees of the WHO blowing the whistle later on.
If Gates can earmark certain funds he donates to specific projects, and those projects involve buying drugs from companies he is invested in, personally or through his foundation, that’s a serious conflict of interest at the very least. He then gains money that allows him to further influence the WHO. This topic will be explored further in part two.
Understand, because the WHO is a large organization, with about 7000 employees, these kinds of things can be occurring while there are also legitimate, good life-saving projects also being done. It’s not black and white or an either/or thing, it is both/and situation.
Although systems are important, understand that these come down to people making decisions. Thus, it may be best to think of the people involved in a few different buckets:
There are some really good people that are genuinely striving to solve the world’s health problems.
There are some that are simply bureaucratic types that may not influence things one way or another. They’re largely just doing their jobs, punching the clock.
There are some that are undoubtedly and fully corrupt. (Remember, sociopaths exist and they have a higher than average chance of rising in position because of such!)
There are those that allow corruption in small ways (such as a consultancy fee from a pharmaceutical company). As we know from doctors that attend pharma-sponsored events, meals or receive kickbacks, they make think they’re then making independent choices but their actions show they’ve been swayed. (One study example here.)
The saying is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. With these types of people involved and with money involved, corruption is pretty much inevitable…even if the majority of people are in group one!
The question is not whether the WHO is corrupt or not. Instead the big question is how much corruption is involved? How much harmful influence is involved? This exploration is not exhaustive but is meant to give us some answers to these questions.
This video was recently removed from Vimeo a few days ago due to violating their policies. Here you can see comments on this from the producer of the film as well as a clip from inside.
If you’re interested, I suggest watching the documentary soon. Amazon has similarly censored documentaries before due to political pressure so it may not be available there for long. More on increasing censorship surrounding the WHO at the end of this part two.
I report below on several things learned from that documentary, but certainly not everything. And I also share other things that are not covered there at all.
Tobacco Science and WHO Consultants
Tobacco having big effects on health, it has been a major focus of the World Health Organization for a long time.
“No Adverse Effects” – Science has been bought for a long time
Just a few quotes from inside:
“Evidence from tobacco industry documents reveals that tobacco companies have operated for many years with the deliberate purpose of subverting the efforts of the World Health Organization (WHO) to control tobacco use. The attempted subversion has been elaborate, well financed, sophisticated, and usually invisible.”
“In one of their most significant strategies for influencing WHO’s tobacco control activities, tobacco companies developed and maintained relationships with current or former WHO staff, consultants and advisors. In some cases, tobacco companies hired or offered future employment to former WHO or UN officials in order to indirectly gain valuable contacts within these organizations that might assist in its goal of influencing WHO activities. Of greatest concern, tobacco companies have, in some cases, had their own consultants in positions at WHO, paying them to serve the goals of tobacco companies while working for WHO. Some of these cases raise serious questions about whether the integrity of WHO decision making has been compromised.”
“[T]obacco is unlike other threats to health. Reversing the epidemic of tobacco use will be about more than fighting addiction and disease; it will be about overcoming a determined and powerful industry, many of whose most important counter-strategies are carried out in secret.”
It is so interesting to read through this 260 page document. (I’ve only skimmed it.) The vast majority of tactics and strategies are laid out. It is well-known that Big Tobacco engaged in this type of multi-pronged warfare and propaganda.
But most people just can’t see it being done in other areas like medicine despite lots of proof of it happening.
Captured Agency by Big Pharma
If you’re not familiar with the term, a “captured agency” is a government agency unduly influenced by economic interest groups directly affected by its decisions. With capture those groups are able to shape regulations and policies that further benefit them.
“This is a confidential pharmaceutical industry trade association dossier about the WHO Expert Working Group (EWG) on R&D Financing. The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA; “Big Pharma”) gave its members 4 documents: a non-public draft report of the WHO EWG and a non-public Comparative Analysis done by the working group, the IFPMA Overview of the EWG Comparative Analysis, and IFPMA summary slide on the EWG Draft Report. The compilation of documents shows the influence of “Big Pharma” on the policy making decisions of the WHO, the UN body safeguarding public health. These confidential documents were obtained by the drug industry before their public release to WHO member states (scheduled to be released May 2010). The document also illustrates that the WHO expert group was highly responsive to industry lobbying — a result that public health groups had feared since early 2009, when the expert group met with the industry, but refused to meet with public health groups known to be industry critics.” (emphasis added)
Julian Assange, founder of Wiki-Leaks, is still in jail right now for spreading the truth.
For example, here’s a quote from inside of one of the documents. “While the overall result is in line with most of the industry positions on this matter, please note that the EWG is currently meeting and there is still room for them to introduce new language. We will update you as new information become available, and will keep monitoring closely the process in these days should any input be requested from friendly EWG Members.”
This is the definition of captured agency! Understand it doesn’t mean that Big Pharma wholly owns the WHO. It means they’re able to get some policies made in their favor.
Those policies typically involve the buying of their product, giving them more profits that can then be used to do more lobbying and regulatory capture.
Here is a specific example of the results of such…
WHO Fueling the Opioid Epidemic
My Medical Monopoly Musings covered some of the ruthless tactics of pharmaceutical companies in spreading opioids across the US and the world. (See #20-#24 for specifics.)
How they did fraudulent science to show that opioids weren’t addictive. How they bribed doctors and professional organizations and hospitals. How they even got into the opioid addiction treatment business to cover both ends of the game. How the DEA tracked the numbers but did nothing.
Before my research this morning, I was not aware of how the WHO was involved. But of course they were!
The WHO Collaborating Centre for Policy and Communications in Cancer Care at the University of Wisconsin Pain & Policy Studies Group received $1.6 million from Purdue Pharma from 1999 to 2010.
The official WHO guidelines, “Achieving Balance in National Opioid Control Policy: Guidelines for Assessment,” relies on “the oft-repeated Purdue claim that dependence occurs in less than one percent of patients, despite no scientific evidence supporting this claim and a multitude of studies contradicting it.”
The WHO changed its policy to recommend Oxycontin in both steps 2 and 3 of its 3-step pain ladder, whereas previously they were just in one step. This was Purdue’s goal to sell more drugs.
“The WHO is unambiguously recommending that highly addictive opioids should be available to children even though they openly recognize that there is little evidence to support that recommendation, and that any further research on the topic would ‘likely’ change the suggested course of action.” Wow! Actually it doesn’t surprise me because drug companies do prey on children.
The report concludes, “The World Health Organization is intended to be a steward of the public trust. By allowing Purdue and the opioid industry to influence guidelines on how opioids should be prescribed and regulated, the WHO has violated that trust. The agency owes the public an explanation. The WHO must explain why these documents have been crafted with the input of people with decades of financial relationships with the opioid industry and written to include specific policy changes envisioned by Purdue.”
This stuff is complex, purposefully so in order to hide and confuse how influence plays a role.
With major money you can influence plenty of key people and organizations as this map shows.
Pain management is just one of many topics covered my the WHO.
Former WHO Director General Warns of Pharma Industry Taking Over
Halfdan Mahler was the WHO Director General from 1973 to 1988. In 1988 the Danish newspaper Politiken warned against exactly this happening with the pharmaceutical industry. He was quoted as saying, “the industry is taking over WHO.”
That was back then! Remember once corruption has a foothold it expands over time. The WHO changed their policy to allow private funding in or around 2005. This allows for more industry influence.
An article in the Journal of Integrative Medicine and Therapy by Søren Ventegodt states, “The results from the Cochrane reviews, which most researchers regard as a much more reliable source of information on medicine than the data coming from the pharmaceutical industry itself, clash harshly with the recommendations of WHO in its drug directories…Many drugs listed in the WHO drug directories, like “WHOs model list of essential medicines”, have no value as medicine according to Cochrane reviews, since the drugs are dangerous, often harmful, and without significant beneficial effects for the patient.”
Unfortunately, the drug companies now have their influence spread into the Cochrane reviewers and databases too! But it started out as a noble and useful venture but they couldn’t allow good science to continue to refute them.
Another WHO Whistleblower
“At a meeting between the Director-General and prospective vaccine manufacturer most of our colleagues were excluded. Me too. I was a head of department in the WHO and one of the Director General’s closest associates, an important member of staff in the organization. On that specific day I went down to the conference room and the person at the door said: “No, this is a private meeting.’ Even though I was a leading official at the WHO, responsible for an important topic that was under discussions there. I wasn’t allowed to enter. That demonstrates that there wasn’t enough transparency about what was being negotiated.”
Dr. Germán Velásquez, WHO Director of the Secretariat on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property until 2010
I’m hypothesizing here but such a meeting could involve an agreement on a policy or decision that would benefit such a manufacturer just like we saw evidence of with opioids. Likely, there would be some sort of quid pro quo in doing so for the WHO or specific people at the WHO.
Once again, there are good people at the WHO that really want to help. Unfortunately, these people are locked out, quit or otherwise have their influence minimized as the corrupting influence spreads.
I was trying to find out the specific dates Velasquez worked at this position and I stumbled on an interesting report about him. (pg. 9-10)
Back in 2001 he was the Director of WHO’s Drug Action Programme. He was mugged and robbed in Rio de Janeiro. Two days later he was attacked again in Miami on Lincoln Road with one attacker saying, “Let’s hope you learnt a lesson from Rio. Stop criticizing the pharmaceutical industry.” Then ten days later he received a midnight phone call which asked him “Are you afraid?” He asked what this was about and the reply was “Miami, Lincoln Road.” Later the same voice called him telling him not to attend a World Trade Organization meeting on drug patent rights.
As is shown across the world, Big Pharma has ways of getting people aligned to its interests and of criticizing, hampering and threatening those that refuse to play ball.
What else would you expect from “organized crime” which the pharmaceutical industry fits the definition of?
Swine Flu (H1N1) Pandemic
Back in 2009, ABC News reported, “The World Health Organization may have inadvertently triggered a new wave of fear over the threat of a swine flu pandemic today by suggesting that up to 2 billion people could be infected if the current outbreak worsens.”
Only 11 years ago, yet if you review this case you see some interesting parallels…
The new guidelines. Severity of disease no longer included.
The reason for the change? A level 5 pandemic would then activate policies already in place where countries had to buy drugs and vaccines.
The Council of Europe is an official United Nations Observer. They launched an inquiry into the WHO’s handling of the pandemic scandal. The resolution for the inquiry stated, “In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.”
Wolfgang Wodarg, chair of the Council of Europe states in the documentary, “The situation was evaluated correspondingly by the Council of Europe. Reprimand was issued. The lack of transparency, the role of the experts who were being paid by the pharmaceutical industry. Then changes were demanded, but the WHO didn’t respond to the Council of Europe. The WHO only turned up for the first hearing and then didn’t come again. It didn’t have to. It isn’t obliged to supply us with any information. We can’t demand to confiscate the files, look through them. It is impossible. There isn’t anybody who can do those things. And there’s no investigating commission like in Parliament where the MPs can go and say something has to stop and then everybody has to turn up and show their files. There’s nothing like that. The WHO can operate in a very clandestine fashion.”
How is this all possible? Conflicts of interest of course. Articlesin the BMJ point out more detail:
“WHO enduringly failed to have a policy regarding conflicts of interest…Juhani Eskola (Finland) a member of the WHO group ‘Strategic Advisory Group of Experts’ (SAGE) has received 6 million Euros for his research center from the vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline during 2009.”
“WHO chose not to disclose financial conflicts of interest among industry sponsored experts guiding its influenza policy.”
Disclosure is not always clear. Regarding these the BBC reported, “It is not clear whether these conflicts were notified privately by WHO to governments around the world, the BMJ said, and a request to see conflict of interest declarations was turned down. In addition, membership of the “emergency committee” which advised WHO’s director general Margaret Chan on declaring an influenza pandemic has been kept secret. It means the names of the 16 committee members are known only to people within WHO, and as such their possible conflicts of interest with drug companies are unknown.”
Of course, as should be expected, the WHO dismissed this stuff as “conspiracy theories.” Let’s see. You’re having secret meetings. You’re hiding conflicts of interest. You change your long held rules and cover that up. Your partners make a boat load of money from doing so…but nothing to see here folks!
There’s plenty more examples. “Dr Neil Ferguson reported receiving small consultancy fees from Baxter, GlaxoSmithKline and Roche for serving on scientific advisory boards and presenting at symposiums. He also received limited amount of consultancy fees from insurance companies (Swiss Re, RMS Ltd.,) and Serco Ltd., a logistics company for advice on pandemic risk and planning. These payments occurred prior to 2008.”
You might recognize Ferguson’s name as one of the people behind the Imperial College model for the coronavirus pandemic that was used as justification for many countries going into quarantine. The same model that was latter downgraded in deaths.
I’m very curious as to what exactly those “small” and “limited” consultancy fees are.
He’s part of SAGE, Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, that advises the UK and don’t reveal any information about their doing so. (Because science done in secret is always the best way to do science!)
So we have a wide range of disclosed, partially disclosed and undisclosed conflicts of interest. This, the money flowing, is how corruption occurs. It’s not just Big Pharma, but we see it elsewhere too.
Genetically modified food, pesticide use or EMF’s. (Yeah, we haven’t even covered those areas but it happens in them all.) And it happens in nuclear energy too…
WHO and Chernobyl
Drug companies are not the only regulatory capture problem!
I don’t know much about Chernobyl. It happened when I was one year old. Just recently I watched the HBO limited series on it. Obviously, I do not take the show as what really happened, but it was eye-opening nonetheless.
“A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded. As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.”
Fifty directly dead? That number seems very low if you know anything about radiation. Does it seem low to you?
Robert Parsons, a freelance journalist, wrote, “For 55 years, as of May 29, 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been under the heel of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in matters regarding ionizing radiation and health. The IAEA, whose mandate is the promotion of everything nuclear, has thus prevented the WHO from carrying out its public health mandate in a world more and more exposed to the lethal effects of ionizing radiation.”
If you want to dive deeper into this matter, then read Parsons article . There’s plenty more to this story such as:
The 1995 WHO Chernobyl Conference as organized by then Director General Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima that drew 700 scientists. Although the proceedings from the conference were promised, these never appeared. After retirement, Nakajima said that these were blocked by the IAEA.
Meanwhile the New York Academy of Sciences published a translation of a 2007 Russian publication that calculated the death toll from 1986 to 2004 at 985,000. Just a bit different from the official WHO estimate!
Because of all this Independent WHO, a grassroots movement, held a daily protest from 8am to 6pm in front of WHO headquarters every single working day for ten years (from April 26th 2007 to April 26th 2017). Their goal was to remind the WHO that it is failing in its duty to protect those populations who are victims of radioactive contamination. After a decade of continued official denial they stopped the protest to focus on other methods.
10 years of protest. The WHO remains silent…
WHO and Fukushima
With that track record in Chernobyl, it shouldn’t be so surprising that we see more failings for the WHO in regards to Fukushima.
NY Times reported in an piece titled, ‘W.H.O. Sees Low Health Risks From Fukushima Accident’ that “A study published on Thursday by the World Health Organization on the health risks associated with the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant suggested that the risk for certain types of cancers had increased slightly among children exposed to the highest doses of radioactivity, but that there would most likely be no observable increase in cancer rates in the wider Japanese population.”
On this, Alison Katz said “I worked for the World Health Organisation myself for 18 years and since I have left I have been involved with ‘Independent WHO’, which works in the area of radiation and health…The Japanese people are already talking. And they are reporting very, you know, very serious health effects in children that the World Health Organisation is ignoring, is not talking about, doesn’t mention in its report. You know, at the time of Chernobyl the people couldn’t talk freely…The other major omission is that the World Health Organisation has never considered anything except cancer as a health effect.”
Meanwhile, the director-general of the WHO at the time Margaret Chan acknowledges that no amount of radiation is good to get in direct contradiction to the WHO and IAEA. “For me, no radiation inside the body is good.”
Industry influence. Cover-ups. Denial of science. Internal censorship. Check, check, check, check.
Can you believe we’re just getting started? Even more in the next part…
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has served since 2017 as the Director-General of the World Health Organization. He is the first non-medical doctor to do so, instead a PhD in community health.
(Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images)
Previously, he was the Minister of Health from 2005 to 2012 and Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2012 to 2016 in Ethiopia.
Tigray People’s Liberation Front
Tedros is a member of the TPLF, an ethnic based leftist political party. The TPLF is actively listed as a perpetrator in the Global Terrorism Database, based on ten incidents from between 1976 and 1990.
New York Times reports Tedros “was the country’s foreign minister, and during this time the government suppressed dissent. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports describe villages displaced, protesters massacred by the police, dissidents tortured and journalists imprisoned. Dr. Tedros is not accused of participation, but he is among the ruling party elite. The rights violations ‘should never have happened,’ he said.”
But these were not completely baseless. Earlier articles discussed unnamed health officials in Ethiopia (Tedros was top health person at the time) of not wanting to test what would ultimately be labelled “acute watery diarrhea” for the cholera microbes. This was because of fear of affecting food exports and tourism.
A telling section of that NY Times article says, “Under the International Health Regulations, which apply to all W.H.O. members, countries must accurately report disease outbreaks. But the W.H.O. can officially report only what countries say. Historically, some countries have tried to cover up or play down outbreaks of human or animal diseases for fear that travel restrictions would be imposed, tourism would suffer or food exports would be curtailed — or simply as a matter of national pride…The regulations were strengthened after China denied for months in 2003 that it had a serious outbreak of lethal respiratory disease in its southern cities. That outbreak ultimately became known as SARS, for severe acute respiratory syndrome, and spread to several other countries, including Canada.” (emphasis added)
“I was in a queue at the post office when the conference room door flung open at my back and an enormous rolled rug flew out, narrowly missing me and landing with a loud thud that couldn’t cover the sound of an African minister of health’s roaring voice.”
“A rug! A rug?” the large East African woman shouted at a trio of Japanese diplomats scampering out of the chamber. “You think you can buy my vote with a rug? Do you think I am that cheap?”
“The enraged minister then loudly delineated a list of “promises” (a.k.a. bribes) the Japanese had reportedly made to other voting members of the executive board, including construction of a hospital, payment of school fees for the children of Switzerland-based nationals employed at WHO, promised employment in plush Geneva for friends and family of the would-be voter and a range of big construction projects. The episode was astounding not because it transpired, but that it did so in front of many witnesses, including an American journalist.”
Understanding the backroom deals are made for organizations such as the WHO (and certainly not the only one) is helpful for understanding geopolitics.
New York Times reports “Tedros was elected with the strong support of China…He has firmly backed Beijing’s claims to have been open and transparent about the outbreak, despite strong evidence that it suppressed early reports on infections.”
In 2012, the African Union headquarters was built in Ethiopia for $200 million. This was the largest construction project since the 1970’s paid for by China. This was one construction project of many. CNN reports, “While Beijing defends its aid practices on the grounds they are neutral and respect recipient nations’ sovereignty, Chinese money is not wholly unpolitical.”
Tedros himself mentioned in 2015 on Facebook, “Under the “Go Global” program of #China, we expect increased Chinese investment flow to #Ethiopia . The 8 industrial parks identified throughout #Ethiopia , some already under construction, will facilitate the migration of Chinese companies to #Ethiopia”
I don’t know exactly what sort of deals went down, but it is clear that Tedros is very much tied to people in power in the Chinese Communist Party and the money that flows because of such.
President Robert Mugabe
Current events are not the first time that Tedros is facing calls to resign. In 2017, he appointed Zimbabwe president, Robert Mugabe as the WHO’s goodwill ambassador for non-communicable disease in Africa.
Here’s a bio video if you’re not familiar with this socialist revolutionary turned dictator.
A Guardian article wrote, “Mugabe rigged elections and began a programme of land reform in which white farmers were forcibly evicted to make way for Zanu-PF party cronies or black Zimbabweans who lacked the skills and capital to farm. This helped throw the economy into disarray. Hyperinflation ran riot and supermarket shelves were empty. The once-proud school and health systems began to crumble. The political environment also became increasingly hostile, with activists and journalists persecuted, jailed or murdered. More than 200 people died in political violence around the 2008 election, which Mugabe was widely seen as having stolen from the MDC’s Morgan Tsvangirai.”
Tedros said, “I am honoured to be joined by President Mugabe, of Zimbabwe, a country that places universal health coverage and health promotion at the centre of its policies to provide healthcare to all.”
Please note that Mugabe did not use Zimbabwe’s healthcare, instead traveling Singapore for himself and his family.
Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) wrote a withering report of Mugabe’s government. “What happens when a government presides over the dramatic reversal of its population’s access to food, clean water, basic sanitation, and healthcare? When government policies lead directly to the shuttering of hospitals and clinics, the closing of its medical school, and the beatings of health workers? We don’t need to wonder. It is happening now in Zimbabwe. PHR has witnessed the devastation caused by the willful neglect of Zimbabwe’s people by the Government of Robert Mugabe.”
Even the US state department said: “This appointment clearly contradicts the United Nations ideals of respect for human rights and human dignity.”
The appointment was rescinded under the private and public outcry. Wasn’t this obviously a bad idea to Tedros before it happened? Many think that this appointment was payback to both Mugabe and China.
“Hillel Neuer, executive director of the watchdog organization UN Watch, told me, “It’s clear that this was a prize, if not compensation, for something.” Tedros may have been rewarding Mugabe for supporting his nomination to the WHO post last year, when Tedros was Ethiopia’s foreign minister and Mugabe headed the African Union… Beijing strongly supports Mugabe, and Mugabe has repaid the favor, helping to ease pressure from Africans who criticize China for exploiting Africa’s natural resources. In December 2015, Mugabe gushed about Xi at the China-Africa summit in Johannesburg,” from the Washington Post.
This has led to the well-circulated video of WHO official, Canadian epidemiologist Bruce Aylward dodging questions about Taiwan.
This is particularly interesting because “Taiwan said its doctors had heard from mainland colleagues that medical staff were getting ill — a sign of human-to-human transmission. Taipei officials said they reported this to both International Health Regulations (IHR), a WHO framework for exchange of epidemic prevention and response data between 196 countries, and Chinese health authorities on December 31. Taiwanese government officials told the Financial Times the warning was not shared with other countries.”
Handling the Coronavirus Pandemic
Here is a good and short overview video on the WHO’s response, which covers some of the other things mentioned here.
On Jan 14th, the WHO tweeted “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China”
Please note that China has officially revised their stats, increasing them by 50% as reported on April 17th. (As if these new numbers should be taken as the truth.)
Meanwhile, “John Mackenzie, a member of the WHO executive committee, publicly stated that international action would have been different if not for China’s “reprehensible” obfuscation of outbreak’s extent.”
In a recent report put out by the WHO, Tedros stated: “It has now been more than 100 days since WHO was notified of the first cases of what we now call COVID‑19, and much has changed since we launched the first Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan two months ago… One of the main things we’ve learned is that the faster all cases are found, tested and isolated, the harder we make it for this virus to spread.”
Are you kidding me? I have never been a health minister. I’m not a part of the WHO. I’m not an infectious disease expert. But I could have told you from the very beginning of this that finding cases, testing them and then isolating them would help. Seriously, this is what you’ve learned?
Today, April 22nd, he said, “Most countries are still in the early stages of their epidemics and some that were affected early in the pandemic are now starting to see a resurgence in cases. Make no mistake, we have a long way to go. This virus will be with us for a long time. There is no question that stay-at-home orders and other physical distancing measures have successfully suppressed transmission in many countries. But this virus remains extremely dangerous.”
Since the WHO is the leader of the response for this pandemic that is almost assuredly what is going to happen.
Again I ask, is Tedros merely inept at his job? Or is all this a sign of corruption? I leave you to judge for yourself.
Yet this only scratches the surface. In the next article I’ll be detailing patterns of corruption from the WHO over the years. Lots of other people have been covering Tedros as of late but I went far and wide to round up what’s coming next.
History is the best indicator of future performance. History of the WHO helps give perspective on current events. Because they are the worldwide health authority now we should know if they deserve that status. Stay tuned!
I’ve been following the work of Daniel Schmachtenberger for some time now. I was turned onto him from a couple of friends I’d traveled down to the Amazon with.
He helped get me diving into understanding systems more, as well as collapse scenarios.
Anyway, he was recently on Rebel Wisdom (a great show or podcast I’d recommend listening too) talking about conspiracies around the pandemic.
It’s a really down-to-earth and realistic approach, from someone who understands how systems give birth to such things, in an area where that’s not often used.
Give it a watch…
If you missed them earlier here are my writings on the subject:
Do Robber Barons become Benevolent Philanthropists…or Do They Continue the Same Devious Methods of Control Under a Better PR Strategy?
Are you familiar with the term Robber Baron? A picture says a thousand words…
It was used to describe people like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt and plenty of others. That these people would lie, cheat and steal in order to attain more wealth. Most often while paying their employees tiny wages and preventing them from organizing to be able to get more.
Cognitive dissonance notwithstanding, we’re led to believe a myth that these people than became beacons of good-natured philanthropy later in life.
Is that the case…or was this convenient myth built from the robber baron’s propaganda?
If these people were so ruthless in business, do you really think they became “good” in older life?
Did a switch flip in their minds from not caring about people to starting to care? Sure, I’ll admit that people do sometimes change, so that is one possibility.
The other possibility is that they saw the power of public relations, especially when they had previously been reviled publicly for their ruthless business tactics. How good PR was instrumental to their continued success.
That they could in fact use their money, under the guise of good, while continuing to build exactly what they had before…more power, control and wealth.
It is the latter case that I believe is more of true when you look at the facts. I’m not denying that their philanthropy did some good, but I think that was not the main purpose of it, at least in many cases of some of the robber barons.
This theory is something to keep in mind as we look at history and today to see how philanthropy may not be everything it is cracked up to be.
John Perkins had this to say in his book, Hoodwinked:
“The function of philanthropy is a fascinating one. As a founder and board member of several nonprofits, I have had to come to grips with questions of integrity around accepting donations from people who made their fortunes in activities that contradict the philosophies of the organizations they offer to support…from a purely economic perspective, philanthropy is inefficient. A person who has accumulated billions of dollars and in doing so has caused others to lose their jobs, closed the doors of small businesses, or ravaged the environment, and then donates a small percentage of his fortune to correcting those problems or to the arts, would have served the world far better by making fewer profits while increasing employment, supporting small businesses, and insisting that his executives practice good environmental stewardship.”
Carnegie talked about spending the first half of life accumulating as much wealth as possible and the second half of life dedicated to giving it away. But, as Perkins suggests, why not accumulate some wealth in a better manner if you’re aiming for impact?
In 1886 a Supreme Court decision on corporate personhood gave those corporations some of the same rights as individuals. However, they did not have the same responsibilities. Thus, in the US, the Golden Age of Robber Barons was around 1900.
CHT206508 The Octopus Who Strangles the World, cartoon from ‘The Minneapolis Times’, reproduced in ‘Lectures Pour Tous’, 1902-03 (engraving) (b/w photo) by American School, (20th century)
lithograph
Private Collection
Archives Charmet
American, out of copyright
Let’s use the example of John D. Rockefeller to explore this theory.
In a major feat of irony, or perhaps the best example of the upside-down-and-inside-out world we live in, one of the men largely responsible for setting up Western medicine, was raised by the prototypical snake oil salesman. Meanwhile real snake oil itself was actually helpful! https://lostempireherbs.com/product/snake-oil/
The “sharp” John D. Rockefeller went on to create and grow Standard Oil becoming the first billionaire in 1916. (That’s equivalent to about $23.6 billion today.) This company came to control 90% of the USA’s oil.
He is attributed with the quote, “Competition is a sin.”
He would buy up companies and if they refused to be bought, he would use his full powers to run them out of business.
“One of the most effective attacks on Rockefeller and his firm was the 1904 publication of The History of the Standard Oil Company, by Ida Tarbell, a leading muckraker. She documented the company’s espionage, price wars, heavy-handed marketing tactics, and courtroom evasions. Although her work prompted a huge backlash against the company, Tarbell stated she was surprised at its magnitude. “I never had an animus against their size and wealth, never objected to their corporate form. I was willing that they should combine and grow as big and wealthy as they could, but only by legitimate means. But they had never played fair, and that ruined their greatness for me.” (emphasis added) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller
Standard Oil was broken up in 1911 by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act into 34 different entities becoming ConocoPhillips, BP, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil and more. This actually made Rockefeller richer.
One example of how Rockefeller used his power was the Ludlow Massacre. In 1913 a strike began at the Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation, owned by Rockefeller, because of the murder of one of their organizers. Rockefeller hired the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency which used Gatling guns and rifles to raid the strikers killing several. Still the strikers resisted. So Rockefeller called up the Colorado governor who called out the National Guard. The National Guard attacked the strikers. And still they resisted. More firefights ensued.
“At dusk, the Guard moved down from the hills with torches, set fire to the tents, and the families fled into the hills; thirteen people were killed by gunfire. The following day, a telephone linesman going through the ruins of the Ludlow tent colony lifted an iron cot covering a pit in one of the tents and found the charred, twisted bodies of eleven children and two women. https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/ludlow-massacre/
This whipped up more people working for the miners in support of the people. Yet, the New York Times wrote an article stating, “With the deadliest weapons of civilization in the hands of savage-mined men, there can be no telling to what lengths the war in Colorado will go unless it is quelled by force … The President should turn his attention from Mexico long enough to take stern measures in Colorado.”
Federal troops went in and the strike finally stopped. In the end, 66 men, women and children had been killed. No one was indicted on any crimes. John D. Rockefeller denied any wrong doing.
It was because of events such as these that Rockefeller realized he needed to clean up his act. He hired PR man, Ivy Lee. (Remember this was around the same time that propaganda was being widely used and turned into a science. Ivy Lee was the other main guy besides Edward Bernays.)
John D. Rockefeller became well known for giving out dimes to lots of people, most notably children. You can easily find many pictures of this online. Why? Because it was a huge public relations campaign.
Part of the PR campaign was to become a philanthropist. In 1910, Rockefeller established the Rockefeller Foundation.
Interestingly enough, public relations is studied even under the guise of the Foundations work, as I found digging through the foundation’s website. In the 20’s the “Foundation funds a project by John Grierson to study the influence of films on public opinion. An expert on the impact of the mass media on society and later a film director, Grierson becomes famous for coining the term “documentary” for non fiction films.” https://web.archive.org/web/20120801192443/http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/who-we-are/our-history/1920-1929
A couple of the main areas he focused on was education and medicine. In 1901 he established the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, which later became Rockefeller University.
Rockefeller formed the General Education Board in 1902 with a $1 million donation. Eventually $180 million would go towards this. In a publication titled “The country school of to-morrow” in 1913, the GEB wrote, “In our dream, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand…We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or men of science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply.” https://archive.org/details/countryschoolof00gate/page/6/mode/2up
Ask yourself, is our school system great? I heard someone describe it last year as being great for preparing you for work in the 20th century. Regardless of conspiracy or not, how our educational system works is largely a work of Carnegie and Rockefeller’s hands.
“Rockefeller spent much of the last 40 years of his life in retirement at his estate in Westchester County, New York, defining the structure of modern philanthropy, along with other key industrialists such as steel magnate Andrew Carnegie. His fortune was mainly used to create the modern systematic approach of targeted philanthropy through the creation of foundations that had a major effect on medicine, education, and scientific research. His foundations pioneered the development of medical research and were instrumental in the near-eradication of hookworm and yellow fever in the United States.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller
Defined the structure of philanthropy. A modern systematic approach of targeted philanthropy. Major effect on medicine, education and scientific research. These words take on an ominous tone depending which theory you’re looking at this with.
This report changed the state of medicine forever. It was aimed at making medicine more “scientific”. (I put that in quotes because of the sheer amount of fraud conducted in medical science back then all the way up to today.) As a result schools would all become modeled after John Hopkins medical school.
Several systems of medicine, that most people haven’t even heard about today including eclectic medicine and physiomedicalism, virtually disappeared. These were, for the most part, herbalism. Homeopathy, osteopathy and others similarly did not make the cut. In essence, medicine was taken out of the hands of people to put it into an elite doctor class, which was of course educated according to how the Foundations saw fit, since they were funding it all.
The Flexner Report stated that there were too many schools, with too many doctors. They needed fewer so that the doctors could earn more. This resulted in women and black schools largely not making the cut, instead making the profession one almost exclusively of white men.
This work led to the focusing on disease, with a reductive scientific model, and forgetting preventative and holistic medicine. “There was maldevelopment in the structure of medical education in America in the aftermath of the Flexner Report. The profession’s infatuation with the hyper-rational world of German medicine created an excellence in science that was not balanced by a comparable excellence in clinical caring. Flexner’s corpus was all nerves without the life blood of caring.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3178858/
It gave rise to pharmaceutical medicine, many drugs of which were derived from petroleum. Rockefeller’s business interests heavily diversified into growing drug companies, including IG Farben, guilty of Nazi war crimes. After the ware this would, like Standard Oil, be broken up into smaller companies in what still exist today, including Bayer, Sanofi, Agfa and BASF. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben
In 1952 to 1954, The Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations of the United States House of Representatives investigated the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford and other foundations. Often called the Cox Committee or the Reece Committee after it’s chairmen, it’s chief investigator was Norman Dodd.
This report details out how education, as funded by these foundations, was “subversive” to American principles.
The Rockefeller Foundation has continued it’s work up to today. It’s still heavily involved in education, medicine and other areas such as agriculture. There they heavily were involved in the “Green Revolution” which sounds great (of course, it’s PR!) but in actuality meant funding pesticide companies (almost allpetroleum derived) and GMO crops the world over.
John D. Rockefeller’s family is still around, many of which being involved in powerful positions over the years, including Nelson Rockfeller as vice president of the US under Ford.
In John Perkins, The Secret History of the American Empire, he mentions “The agencies that are supposed to be the good guys are part of the game. I’m not just talking about the World Bank either. The deception includes some of the nonprofits, the NGOs.”
This is followed by a conversation he has with a woman working for one such non-government organization in Africa who came to some scary conclusions from her direct experience there:
“Are we being used?…Are the concepts of aid and development simply tools in the arsenal of the West, wielded not for the sake of charity but for the sake of control?…I believe if the West truly wanted to see a stable, developed Africa, the continent would be well on its way. Instead, the situation is worse after decades of Western involvement and billions of dollars of aid money.”
This sentiment was echoed by Matt Kennard, an investigative journalist who wrote The Racket. “The media would have you believe that there is no racket, that it’s purely an accident that we live in a world where 85 people, 85 people, own half the world’s wealth while more children die of starvation every year than died in the Holocaust.”
Ultimately, it is your call whether you believe such large foundations, as well as other institutions and agencies, are doing good work that benefits you and other people…
…or if they’re seeking greater power and control to shape the world how they best see fit (which does not necessarily benefit you and I).
This is not meant to be a definitive piece on the subject, but to kick around some ideas. Happy to have you share your comments too on the blog or by emailing me.
As I mentioned in a previous post (Down the Rabbit Hole) I’d been digging into conspiracies for some time. And when the pandemic began, I felt like this was what I’d been preparing for.
Fight for the Constitution
Even if you don’t believe in conspiracy theories, do you believe that people should be able to speak about them?
I’m not really a fan of Alex Jones, yet I did not want to see him de-platformed. I knew that was a bad sign and that he wouldn’t be the only one.
I don’t agree with David Icke about many things, yet I don’t think his video should be pulled off YouTube.
I do know that vaccines have issues. Yet we can’t even talk about the real acknowledged side effects as listed on the package inserts without it being spreading “misinformation.” That is very troubling.
This stuff has been going on for years now, but it is accelerating. We need to speak up before we can’t anymore.
Social media is the public square of the modern day age. To have your message de-boosted, shadowbanned, demonetized or completely removed according to rules that are always changing (and without them giving you clear answers as to why) is problematic at the very least.
This is a freedom of speech issue.
They frame what they do as these people are hurting others, but are they really?
They’ve banned talking about 5G causing coronavirus. Is this just a step until they ban anything that discusses the risks of 5G?
(When the industry itself is saying that there is no safety trials and they’re not conducting any either.)
Last time I checked, most Americans were still for Freedom of Speech. For freedom of religion. For freedom of assembly. For freedom of press. Most people the world over are for these things.
Yet these are the very things that are under attack right now.
Even though medical freedom is not in the Constitution, not being part of medical experiments is part of the Geneva Conventions. And most people are for medical freedom too. But this has been under attack for some time. Remember that I was planning to leave California because we already lost it here.
The time is now. I’m not saying to hurt or endanger other people. I’m not saying to destroy property like 5G towers. But there are ways of being completely safe and respectful while still breaking the imposed rules.
Here’s a few things you can do…
Share What They Take Down
This message comes from Brian at London Real who was the interviewer in the controversial David Icke video which was recently removed.
Hi there,
These are desperate times, and they require desperate actions.
Our freedom of speech and basic human rights are being attacked on a magnitude we’ve never seen before in modern history.
The recent BANNING of our David Icke Interview by YouTube, Vimeo, Facebook, and the UK regulator Ofcom shows us that we as citizens no longer have the right to publicly express our independent opinions.
These are dark times indeed my friends. But I refuse to give up or give in.
Unfortunately after they banned the 2nd largest YouTube live stream in the world on Monday, they didn’t stop there. They also banned ANY content from that David Icke interview and they banned us from mentioning it or linking to it in any form!
Now we can all see the desperate nature of this situation.
Which is why I need you!
As a newly deputised member of the London Real Army, I am asking you to help make public this important David Icke interview BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
This means uploading as many different video clips from the interview to ANY AND ALL SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS possible.
I mean Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Snap, TikTok, you name it!
If enough of us act together, they cannot silence us all!
Which is why we have uploaded 22 separate video clips and thumbnail images to a Dropbox drive located here:
Please download these immediately and upload these to any and all social media platforms. Link back to the full interview at https://www.LondonReal.tv/icke and use the hashtag #londonrealarmy so we can all watch the incredible work being done!
These are desperate times and they require desperate actions.
There are many forces working very hard to silence us.
Our website and servers were hacked this morning, but we fought back and have upgraded our hardware and software in order to keep serving these important David Icke episodes in full high definition video to extremely high demand.
I make a promise to you now: We will not be defeated in defending our right to Freedom of Speech. Period.
But I can’t do this alone. So please, as a new member of the London Real Army, get these messages out to the people as soon as possible.
Join the Resistance!
Join London Real!
And let’s do this #londonrealarmy!!
Brian.
*****
Brian himself doesn’t believe most of Icke’s theories. You may not either.
But, once again, do you believe in freedom of speech? I sure do. Without it, we lose everything else.
But isn’t that exactly the point? Saying protesting is non-essential is saying the Constitution is suspended.
Whether or not you believe in the pandemic going on, it is important to note that these events are setting a precedent. Future would-be dictators then have greater means to do the same or worse because of such precedents. Constitutional rights are necessary for that reason exactly in emergencies, not just in normal times.
Here in Santa Cruz county they closed the parks and beaches. I went anyway because being in nature is an important part of supporting healthy immunity. It was my own protest against a stupid rule. (Stupid because doing it alone or with people I’m quarantining at home with can’t possibly put anyone at risk. In the meantime it builds my immunity up which is what this is supposedly all about.)
I was prepared to pay a fine in doing so, but I didn’t get caught.
Decide Where You’ll Make Your Stand
You can’t fight everyone on every issue!
For me the vaccine issue is where I’m going to focus more of my time and efforts. Why? Because I really do not want to be injected with poorly tested things that I have no choice over. Even worse many of the new vaccines in production are completely new technologies…which means they need more safety studies not less!
And the good news. The truth is winning!
The World Health Organization listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the biggest health threats in 2019. This after, according to the American Society for Microbiology and Research America, “the percentage of American adults who say it’s “very important” to have their children vaccinated was down 11 points over the past decade, at 71 percent in May from 82 percent in 2008.” https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-news/articles/2018-05-21/public-confidence-in-vaccines-sags-new-report-finds
The vaccine hesitancy is growing because they’re losing in covering up the risks, especially as they add more and more vaccines and more and more mandates.
I’ve heard multiple people say they would rather die than take a coronavirus vaccine. That warms my heart. Not because that may be necessary, but because only so many people need to feel that way for this not to go according to their plans.
I am prepared to not be able to travel if that is what it takes. I’m making my peace with that right now. I am preparing to not be a part of the worldwide system if need be. But I hope we can stop it before then.
Understand that the true information has been getting out which is exactly why they’re cracking down and censoring it.
Without more people seeing through the illusion, this event will likely lead to increased trust in vaccines because they’re already positioned as the only savior. And that would mean they can make more draconian steps.
If the true risks of vaccines breaks through with that the whole medical monopoly will become the naked emperor. With that the government collusion will fall. With that the mass media collusion will fall. With that the Big Tech collusion will fall.
This is the domino effect. We only need to make the stand in one place for the whole façade to break open.
And that’s why they need to seize power. They can’t allow this to happen which is why they’re giving up less and less ground, basically denying there is any risk to vaccines.
On Bill Gates and Social Activism
Yeah, I’m going to talk about him. Some people think he is the savior of the world. That’s certainly what his PR campaign is going for.
Other people think he’s a Satanist, a pedophile, or at the very least a eugenicist!
But these are not the only two options. He could be a genuine philanthropist…but be wrong about vaccines. (Although pretty much everyone agrees he was an absolutely ruthless businessman.)
I am planning a deep dive on Bill Gates because it’s a big topic to get into. For right now I wanted to share something interesting going on.
Right now, as of writing this, there are 240,000 comments the vast majority of which are people telling him they don’t want his vaccines. (That increased by two thousand comments in the time it took to write this post.)
There’s even evidence that people’s comments were being deleted at least early on.
Doing something like this is digital activism. It’s super easy to join into the fray.
There’s People Doing Great Work…especially in the Court Rooms
I started this post because of a comment and questions I received:
“My question is I’m wanting to join/find community who will resist mandatory vaccines and also be prepared to take action to resist effectively. What are your tips and ideas about this? Any thoughts on how long you will personally tolerate abiding by bans on gatherings, etc? Or ways to organize online that won’t be censored.”
I’m not too sure about groups online or off right now. Not my forte. In fact, I’ve never actually been at a protest before.
But I did want to point to a few people that are doing really great work.
This is the group that Del Bigtree is part of. I’ve been showing videos of his because they’re doing great work, including suing and winning court cases against people like the CDC.
Same thing, they’re taking the bad guys to court. They’re also actively fighting against the 5G rollout as well.
Donating money helps. That’s something I’m doing. I’m not sure if they’re looking for volunteers for anything, or setting up groups or anything like that, but it’s worth investigating.
Remember the Social Engineering
Whether it was by design and/or a systemic effect that emerged, we are not supposed to talk about conspiracy theories, we’re not supposed to talk about vaccines except in glowing terms, about the lockdown being anything other than good for us, about 5G having risks.
But we must. Once again, speak up now or we end up in a place where we cannot speak.
Prior to these events I was hesitant to talk about vaccines online. Easier to simply avoid the issue. Though I was building up to it (my plan was after leaving California), then this happened and I decided not to wait any longer. There’s more steps I can take too.
All this is enforced mostly by the people around us, not just the authority figures.
Have compassion for someone that may be completely wrong, completely ignorant yet talking from borrowed authority. It’s largely not their fault.
Civil disobedience against unjust things can all be done in kind ways.
Arguments can be had without letting emotions get the best of you.
The good news is that 100% of people don’t need to be convinced. I don’t know what percentage is needed for a revolution to occur, but it is not even a majority. Not even close.
The more people speak up (which is absolutely happening now) the more other people will speak up. It’s the most important thing that can be done right now.
There lived an old farmer who had worked in his fields for many, many years. One day, his horse bolted away. His neighbors dropped in to commiserate with him. “What awful luck,” they tut-tutted sympathetically, to which the farmer only replied, “We’ll see.”
Next morning, to everyone’s surprise, the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. “How amazing is that!” they exclaimed in excitement. The old man replied, “We’ll see.”
A day later, the farmer’s son tried to mount one of the wild horses. He was thrown on the ground and broke his leg. Once more, the neighbors came by to express their sympathies for this stroke of bad luck. “We’ll see,” said the farmer politely.
The next day, the village had some visitors – military officers who had come with the purpose of drafting young men into the army. They passed over the farmer’s son, thanks to his broken leg. The neighbors patted the farmer on his back – how lucky he was to not have his son join the army! “We’ll see,” was all that the farmer said! (Sourced from https://blog.buddhagroove.com/zen-story-cause-and-effect/)
We’re going through tumultuous times. There’s no denying that!
And pretty much all of what I’ve been sharing is scary stuff. Weaponized viruses. 5G control grids. Mandatory vaccines. Total government surveillance. And world leaders that appear to be part of various criminal cartels.
That is the case…and yet I am still positive. I am hopeful for the future.
I had an impactful dream earlier this month…
I was inside a building with big glass windows overlooking a beach. Waves were coming up near it. And then the waves were coming up against the glass. Some people were trapped in the waves and getting pressed up against the glass. Then a tsunami was coming, a wave so massive it was frightening. When the wave hit, the glass shattered all around. Chaos! And yet I was off, somehow safe, merely observing this to happen.
What does it mean?
I’ve been recording and analyzing my dreams for years. And I think this one for the most part is obvious. Waves are still coming. It’s going to get worse, aka the tsunami is still coming.
That was my immediate conscious reading. But deep in a hypnotic state I asked for more guidance around this.
Water in dreams is often a spiritual sign. What came to me was that these were cleansing waves. Yes, they’re going to destroy in the short term. Yes, it’s going to hurt and even kill people. However, in the longer term this is cleaning out old structures…ones that need to be cleaned out.
It’s like in the Daoist story above. We shall see. What seems extremely bad in the short term may prove out to be better in the long term (although we’ll then see how that turns out!).
That long term might be in just a few years. Or maybe it is centuries. I don’t know. I certainly don’t have a crystal ball here.
We live in a universe of possibilities. I choose to see the positive potential futures in front of us. I aim for that. I orient my heart to that. And that helps me stay positive.
While fear and despair may be normal reactions to what is going on it’s important not to stay there. Doing so means giving whatever dark forces we’re up against even more power.
Grief for what is lost is okay.
Pre-grieving what is going to undoubtedly occur is even better. (Good to be ahead of the ball.)
And yet it is absolutely critical to see the positive possibilities. Being hopeful does not mean being naïve. You can be positive yet still grounded, realistic and adaptable.
Understand that as the grip of power gets tighter and tighter, more people slip through. More people are forced to reckon with what is going on. For example, I’ve had conversations with people about stuff I’ve literally never had conversations about previous. And with people I wouldn’t have expected to be similarly seeing through the lies.
The noose is tightening ever so slowly. But this does give us a chance to slip it off before it is too late.
Tomorrow I’ll cover what can and needs to be done. (I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I’ve been thinking about this and people are starting to ask…)
But first, one other related positive piece. The only thing that is sighing, groaning under the pressure is human civilization. It may just be breaking…and we have to be okay with that. After all so much of what was going on was unsustainable, meaning it has to break at some point.
And yet, through all this nature is still the same.
The sunrise hasn’t been affected by the virus or the economy.
Walk into a forest and you wouldn’t know that the world is falling apart. Because the Earth itself isn’t.
My two year old daughter doesn’t know what is going on. She’s a bundle of joy I get to play with each day now, the same as months ago before all this craziness.
Now is a better time than most to get back to nature. (Even if it’s illegal to do so.)
Recognize that death and dying is part of nature, a part that is absolutely necessary to allow new life to come forth.
Get aligned with nature, which includes all of our human nature, and you’ll do okay no matter what happens.
